Nanomaterial Properties: Implications for Safe Medical Applications of Nanotechnology

  • Saji GeorgeEmail author


Nanomaterials with exciting functional properties are being increasingly used for therapeutic applications. Research studies over the past decade have shown that properties that make nanomaterials useful for their therapeutic application may also give rise to potential hazardous outcomes. Experimental evidences suggest that variations in nanomaterial size, shape, aspect ratio, surface chemistry, dispersal state and bio-persistence in addition to material ‘specific’ properties could all contribute individually or combinatorially to biological injury via toxicological pathways. While nanomaterial-induced injury pathways could be associated with human disease conditions, it should be noted that currently, there is no human disease that can be directly related to the exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Therefore, in this book chapter, the term ‘toxicity’ is referring to nanomaterial-induced injury mechanisms from experimental studies and details the major properties of nanomaterials in relation to their potential adverse outcomes. In addition, topics on strategies to elucidate property–activity relationships, merits and demerits of cellular models and animal models of toxicology and the use of high-throughput screening for rapid identification of ‘danger signal’ has been emphasized to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding on the discipline of ‘nanotoxicology’.


Nanotoxicology Property–activity relationship Cellular models Animal models Cytotoxicity Pro-inflammatory potential Oxidative stress High-throughput screening High-content screening 


  1. 1.
    Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA. An examination of existing data for the industrial manufacture and use of nanocomponents and their role in the life cycle impact of nanoproducts. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(5):1256–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, 2004, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee. National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nel A, et al. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 2006;311(5761):622–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xia T, Li N, Nel AE. Potential health impact of nanoparticles. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):​137–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ICRP. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. A report of a Task Group of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1994;24:1–482.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao H, Shi W, Freund LB. Mechanics of receptor-mediated endocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(27):9469–74.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li X. Size and shape effects on receptor-mediated endocytosis of nanoparticles. J Appl Phys. 2012;​111(2) doi: 10.1063/1.3676448.
  9. 9.
    Garnett MC, Kallinteri P. Nanomedicines and nanotoxicology: some physiological principles. Occup Med. 2006;56(5):307–11.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pan Y, et al. Size-dependent cytotoxicity of gold nanoparticles. Small. 2007;3(11):1941–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allouni ZE, et al. Agglomeration and sedimentation of TiO2 nanoparticles in cell culture medium. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2009;68(1):83–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Derjaguin BV, Landau LD. Theory of the stability of strongly charged lyophobic sols and of the adhesion of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes. Acta Physicochim URSS. 1941;14:733–62.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rezwan K, et al. Change of xi potential of biocompatible colloidal oxide particles upon adsorption of bovine serum albumin and lysozyme. J Phys Chem B. 2005;109(30):14469–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang JK, Oberdorster G, Biswas P. Characterization of size, surface charge, and agglomeration state of nanoparticle dispersions for toxicological studies. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11(1):77–89.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta AK, Gupta M. Synthesis and surface engineering of iron oxide nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Biomaterials. 2005;26(18):​3995–4021.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hajdú A, et al. Surface charging, polyanionic coating and colloid stability of magnetite nanoparticles. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Aspects. 2009;​347(1–3):​104–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulze C, et al. Not ready to use – overcoming pitfalls when dispersing nanoparticles in physiological media. Nanotoxicology. 2008;2(2):51–U17.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foucaud L, et al. Measurement of reactive species production by nanoparticles prepared in biologically relevant media. Toxicol Lett. 2007;174(1–3):1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bihari P, et al. Optimized dispersion of nanoparticles for biological in vitro and in vivo studies. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2008;5(1):14.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porter D, et al. A biocompatible medium for nanoparticle dispersion. Nanotoxicology. 2008;2(3):​144–54.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ji Z, et al. Dispersion and stability optimization of TiO2 nanoparticles in cell culture media. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:7309–14.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    George S, et al. Use of a rapid cytotoxicity screening approach to engineer a safer zinc oxide nanoparticle through iron doping. ACS Nano. 2010;4(1):15–29.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    George S, et al. Surface defects on plate-shaped silver nanoparticles contribute to its hazard potential in a fish gill cell line and zebrafish embryos. ACS Nano. 2012;6(5):3745–59.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang X, Xia T, Ntim SA, Ji ZX, George S, Meng H, Zhang HY, Castranova V, Mitra S, Nel AE. Quantitative techniques for assessing and controlling the dispersion and biological effects of multiwalled carbon nanotubes in mammalian tissue culture cells. ACS Nano. 2010;4:7241–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang X, Xian T, Ntim SA, Ji Z, Lin S, Meng H, Chung C, George S, Zhang H, Wang M, Li N, Yang Y, Castranova V, Mitra S, Bonner J, Nel AE. Dispersal state of multiwalled carbon nanotubes elicits profibrogenic cellular responses that correlate with fibrogenesis biomarkers and fibrosis in the murine lung. ACS Nano. 2011;5:9772–87.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Decuzzi P, et al. Size and shape effects in the biodistribution of intravascularly injected particles. J Control Release. 2010;141(3):320–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meng H, et al. Aspect ratio determines the quantity of mesoporous silica nanoparticle uptake by a small GTPase-dependent macropinocytosis mechanism. ACS Nano. 2011;5(6):4434–47.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stanton MF, Layard M, Tegeris A, Miller E, May M, Morgan E, Smith A. Relation of particle dimension to carcinogenicity in Amphibole Asbestoses and other fibrous minerals. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981;67:​965–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Donaldson K, et al. Pulmonary toxicity of carbon nanotubes and asbestos — similarities and differences. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(15):2078–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wagner JC, Berry G. Mesothdiomas in rats following inoculation with asbestos. Br J Cancer. 1969;​23:567–81.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis JMG. A review of experimental evidence for the carcinogenicity of man-made vitreous fibres. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1986;12:12–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lippmann M. Effects of fiber characteristics on lung deposition, retention, and disease. Environ Health Perspect. 1990;88:311–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsuda A, et al. Alveolar cell stretching in the presence of fibrous particles induces interleukin-8 responses. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1999;21(4):​455–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brown SC, et al. Influence of shape, adhesion and simulated lung mechanics on amorphous silica nanoparticle toxicity. Adv Powder Technol. 2007;​18(1):​69–79.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ji Z, et al. Designed synthesis of CeO2 nanorods and nanowires for studying toxicological effects of high aspect ratio nanomaterials. ACS Nano. 2012;6(6):​5366–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perrault SD, et al. Mediating tumor targeting efficiency of nanoparticles through design. Nano Lett. 2009;9(5):1909–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meng H, et al. Codelivery of an optimal drug/siRNA combination using mesoporous silica nanoparticles to overcome drug resistance in breast cancer in vitro and in vivo. ACS Nano. 2013;7(2):994–1005.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Riviere NA. Surface coatings determine cytotoxicity and irritation potential of quantum dot nanoparticles in epidermal keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;​127(1):143–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lovric J, et al. Differences in subcellular distribution and toxicity of green and red emitting CdTe quantum dots. J Mol Med. 2005;83(5):377–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verma A, et al. Surface-structure-regulated cell-membrane penetration by monolayer-protected nanoparticles. Nat Mater. 2008;7(7):588–95.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stasko NA, et al. Cytotoxicity of polypropylenimine dendrimer conjugates on cultured endothelial cells. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8(12):3853–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sayes CM, et al. The differential cytotoxicity of water-soluble fullerenes. Nano Lett. 2004;4(10):​1881–7.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sayes CM, et al. Functionalization density dependence of single-walled carbon nanotubes cytotoxicity in vitro. Toxicol Lett. 2006;161(2):135–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Aydin Sevinç B, Hanley L, Antibacterial activity of dental composites containing zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;​94B(1):22–31.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    George S, et al. Use of a high-throughput screening approach coupled with in vivo zebrafish embryo screening to develop hazard ranking for engineered nanomaterials. ACS Nano. 2011;5(3):1805–17.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xia T, et al. Decreased dissolution of ZnO by iron doping yields nanoparticles with reduced toxicity in the rodent lung and zebrafish embryos. ACS Nano. 2011;5(2):1223–35.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saha N, Dubey AK, Basu B. Cellular proliferation, cellular viability, and biocompatibility of HA-ZnO composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012;100B(1):256–64.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sousa CJA, et al. Synthesis and characterization of zinc oxide nanocrystals and histologic evaluation of their biocompatibility by means of intraosseous implants. Int Endod J. 2014;47:416–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lührs AK, Geurtsen W. The application of silicon and silicates in dentistry: a review. In: Müller WG, Grachev M, editors. Biosilica in evolution, morphogenesis, and nanobiotechnology. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 359–80.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Castranova V, Vallyathan V. Silicosis and coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;​108:675–84.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Elias Z, et al. Cytotoxic and transforming effects of silica particles with different surface properties in Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2000;14(5):409–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Donaldson K, Tran CL. Inflammation caused by particles and fibers. Inhal Toxicol. 2002;14(1):5–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rimal B, Greenberg AK, Rom WN. Basic pathogenetic mechanisms in sificosis: current understanding. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2005;11(2):169–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dutta D, Moudgil BM. Crystalline silica particles mediated lung injury. Kona Powder Part. 2007;​25:76–87.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang H, et al. Processing pathway dependence of amorphous silica nanoparticle toxicity: colloidal vs pyrolytic. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134(38):​15790–804.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Melo MAS, et al. Novel dental adhesives containing nanoparticles of silver and amorphous calcium phosphate. Dent Mater. 2013;29(2):199–210.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ahn S-J, et al. Experimental antimicrobial orthodontic adhesives using nanofillers and silver nanoparticles. Dent Mater. 2009;25(2):206–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Navarro E, et al. Toxicity of silver nanoparticles to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(23):8959–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhao C-M, Wang W-X. Comparison of acute and chronic toxicity of silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate to Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2011;30(4):885–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Glover RD, Miller JM, Hutchison JE. Nanoparticle dynamics on surfaces and potential sources of nanoparticles in the environment. ACS Nano. 2011;22:8950–7.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pal S, Tak YK, Song JM. Does the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles depend on the shape of the nanoparticle? A study of the gram-negative bacterium escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(6):1712–20.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Morones JR, et al. The bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticles. Nanotechnology. 2005;16(10):2346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xinling TM, Tsuji, Syntheses of silver nanowires in liquid phase. Nanowires Science and Technology, Nicoleta Lupu (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-7619-89-3, InTech, Available from: 2010. Last accessed on Oct 29 2014.
  64. 64.
    Cui F-Z, Ge J. New observations of the hierarchical structure of human enamel, from nanoscale to microscale. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1(3):​185–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Imbeni V, et al. The dentin-enamel junction and the fracture of human teeth. Nat Mater. 2005;4(3):​229–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Catledge SA, et al. Nanostructured ceramics for biomedical implants. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2002;2(3–1):​293–312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reynolds EC, et al. Fluoride and casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate. J Dent Res. 2008;87(4):344–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Huang S, et al. Remineralization potential of nano-hydroxyapatite on initial enamel lesions: an in vitro study. Caries Res. 2011;45(5):460–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chen L, et al. The role of surface charge on the uptake and biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles with osteoblast cells. Nanotechnology. 2011;22(10):105708.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yuan Y, et al. Size-mediated cytotoxicity and apoptosis of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in human hepatoma HepG2 cells. Biomaterials. 2010;31(4):​730–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shi Z, et al. Size effect of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles on proliferation and apoptosis of osteoblast-like cells. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(1):338–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cho MJ, et al. The impact of size on tissue distribution and elimination by single intravenous injection of silica nanoparticles. Toxicol Lett. 2009;189(3):​177–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fitzpatrick JAJ, et al. Long-term persistence and spectral blue shifting of quantum dots in vivo. Nano Lett. 2009;9(7):2736–41.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chen Z, Chen H, Meng H, Xing G, Gao X, Sun B, Shi X, Yuan H, Zhang C, Liu R, Zhao F, Zhao Y, Fang X. Bio-distribution and metabolic paths of silica coated CdSeS quantum dots. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008;230:364–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen YS, et al. Assessment of the in vivo toxicity of gold nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2009;​4(8):858–64.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hartung T. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature. 2009;460(7252):208–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Choi JY, Ramachandran G, Kandlikar M. The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(9):3030–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gilbert N. Chemical-safety costs uncertain. Nature. 2009;460:1065.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Abbott A. Toxicity testing gets a makeover. Nature. 2009;461:158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Damoiseaux R, et al. No time to lose-high throughput screening to assess nanomaterial safety. Nanoscale. 2011;3(4):1345–60.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Pathogenesis of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(Supplement 5):350–9.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Olmedo DG, et al. Effect of titanium dioxide on the oxidative metabolism of alveolar macrophages: an experimental study in rats. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005;73A(2):142–9.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wang J, et al. Acute toxicity and biodistribution of different sized titanium dioxide particles in mice after oral administration. Toxicol Lett. 2007;168(2):​176–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Meng H, et al. A predictive toxicological paradigm for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. ACS Nano. 2009;3(7):1620–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Li N, et al. Particulate air pollutants and asthma. A paradigm for the role of oxidative stress in PM-induced adverse health effects. Clin Immunol. 2003;109(3):250–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nel AE, et al. Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater. 2009;8:543–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Xia T, et al. Comparison of the abilities of ambient and manufactured nanoparticles to induce cellular toxicity according to an oxidative stress paradigm. Nano Lett. 2006;6(8):1794–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Xia T, et al. Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress properties. ACS Nano. 2008;2(10):2121–34.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Xia T, et al. Cationic polystyrene nanosphere toxicity depends on cell-specific endocytic and mitochondrial injury pathways. ACS Nano. 2008;2(1):85–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jung EJ, et al. Pro-oxidative DEP chemicals induce heat shock proteins and an unfolding protein response in a bronchial epithelial cell line as determined by DIGE analysis. Proteomics. 2007;7(21):​3906–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Xiao GG, et al. Use of proteomics to demonstrate a hierarchical oxidative stress response to diesel exhaust particle chemicals in a macrophage cell line. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(50):50781–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Araujo JA, et al. Ambient particulate pollutants in the ultrafine range promote early atherosclerosis and systemic oxidative stress. Circ Res. 2008;102(5):​589–96.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Li N, Xia T, Nel AE. The role of oxidative stress in ambient particulate matter-induced lung diseases and its implications in the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. Free Radic Biol Med. 2008;44(9):​1689–99.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Li N, et al. The adjuvant effect of ambient particulate matter is closely reflected by the particulate oxidant potential. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(7):​1116–23.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Araujo J, Nel A. Particulate matter and atherosclerosis: role of particle size, composition and oxidative stress. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2009;6(1):24.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Martin CJ, et al. Zinc exposure in Chinese foundry workers. Am J Ind Med. 1999;35(6):574–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rohrs LC. Metal-fume fever from inhaling zinc oxide. Arch Intern Med. 1957;100(1):44–9.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Gordon T, Fine JM. Metal fume fever. Occup Med State Art Rev. 1993;8(3):505–17.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wang ZX, et al. Global gene expression profiling in whole-blood samples from individuals exposed to metal fumes. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(2):​233–41.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Galluzzi L, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring cell death in higher eukaryotes. Cell Death Differ. 2009;16(8):​1093–107.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Casey A, et al. Spectroscopic analysis confirms the interactions between single walled carbon nanotubes and various dyes commonly used to assess cytotoxicity. Carbon. 2007;45(7):1425–32.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Worle-Knirsch JM, Pulskamp K, Krug HF. Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett. 2006;6(6):1261–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Monteiro-Riviere NA, Inman AO, Zhang LW. Limitations and relative utility of screening assays to assess engineered nanoparticle toxicity in a human cell line. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;​234(2):​222–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kroll A, et al. Current in vitro methods in nanoparticle risk assessment: limitations and challenges. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72(2):370–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zhang H, et al. Differential expression of syndecan-1 mediates cationic nanoparticle toxicity in undifferentiated versus differentiated normal human bronchial epithelial cells. ACS Nano. 2011;5(4):​2756–69.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Li R, et al. Surface interactions with compartmentalized cellular phosphates explain rare earth oxide nanoparticle hazard and provide opportunities for safer design. ACS Nano. 2014;8:1771–83.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable NanotechnologySchool of Chemical & Life Sciences, Nanyang PolytechnicSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations